Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

hazelman

Grading Freeman vs Gouby

Recommended Posts

One of the most contentious issues on any coin forum appears to be grading. 

Could grading methods used by Freeman vs Gouby be one of the issues?

In addition what is the equivalent of the following grading by Gouby for Freeman. 

Gouby Fine

Gouby Very Fine

Gouby Extra Fine

Gouby AUNC

Gouby UNC

Thanks

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there's any dispute between Freeman and Gouby when it comes to grading. Freeman doesn't talk much about coin grades. 

There may be some slight disparity when it comes to rarity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British coin grades are standard:

UNC and BU

EF

VF

F
Fair or VG
 
What varies is people's interpretations of grades. EF and VF aren’t as strict as they were 30 years ago (except as listed by Spink). F is more consistent though I've seen even reputable dealers use it for coins no better than Fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents perhaps I haven't phrased myself correctly .  To be fair i dont have any reference material from Freeman an as such tend to use Gouby. The reasons I came to this conclusion is that I have heard terms that i am not accustomed to which i assumed are terms used by Freeman such as Good Very Fine, which to me would be VF+ is this incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hazelman said:

Gents perhaps I haven't phrased myself correctly .  To be fair i dont have any reference material from Freeman an as such tend to use Gouby. The reasons I came to this conclusion is that I have heard terms that i am not accustomed to which i assumed are terms used by Freeman such as Good Very Fine, which to me would be VF+ is this incorrect?

No, quite right. VF+ = GVF. Intermediate grades - e.g. from F to VF - would be F / F+ or GF / NVF / AVF / VF. (N = nearly A = about). A wearing die versus a new die might be AEF / GEF.

Where the obverse and reverse are different grades, they're given separately (obverse first) - e.g. VF/EF

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hazelman said:

Gents perhaps I haven't phrased myself correctly .  To be fair i dont have any reference material from Freeman an as such tend to use Gouby. The reasons I came to this conclusion is that I have heard terms that i am not accustomed to which i assumed are terms used by Freeman such as Good Very Fine, which to me would be VF+ is this incorrect?

Gouby does have his own way of grading coins, which doesn't fundamentally alter normal grading principles, but adds to it in terms of splitting grades, especially at the UNC level. 

Fred, do you own a copy of Gouby's book, 'The British Bronze Penny"? He explains the distinctions very well in there, at pages 105 to 107 . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thanks I do have a copy -that’s what I use to grade my coins - the uncertainty arose out of swing terminology that I was not familiar with which I assumed came from Freeman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be better to adopt a number scale ie  Shelden 0  to  70 or even the GGS 0  to 100 and cut out all the abts. VF+ etc.

 

Edited by ozjohn
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the grading book by Derek Francis Allen and I like it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

I have the grading book by Derek Francis Allen and I like it.

 

Yes, it's a great book.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously, like many tomes that have a hell of a lot of work hidden behind a simple façade, it's actually quite interesting,

when one is curious about 'how things wear out',  often involving denominations that have never appealed....

Strange thing, grading.

"Eye appeal" or "better in the hand" or "toning" etc. etc. could make all this a referenceless minefield,

whereas this books is a good attempt to create a reference frame that's needed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes, it's a great book.

Couldn't agree more. I use it all the time. On the Ipad Kindle app you can magnify the image  to get an even better view of the coin .

Edited by ozjohn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very much enjoyed reading my copy. I doubt there will be a second edition due to the work involved. But if a second edition were to happen, one major improvement is to ensure that each of the coins featured have large size UNC photos of the entire coins. Telling the difference between UNC and GEF is often the hardest. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

Curiously, like many tomes that have a hell of a lot of work hidden behind a simple façade, it's actually quite interesting,

when one is curious about 'how things wear out',  often involving denominations that have never appealed....

Strange thing, grading.

"Eye appeal" or "better in the hand" or "toning" etc. etc. could make all this a referenceless minefield,

whereas this books is a good attempt to create a reference frame that's needed.

Absolutely - it is totally scientific in its approach. It's also great for pennies as it concentrates on them. 

I do agree that sometimes an EF coin with residual lustre, no marks and even toning, can look better than a nominally UNC example with uneven toning and marks. But that is actually separate from degrees of actual wear, which is what grading is all about. 

Derek is a member on here @Red Riley, but hasn't posted for some time.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Absolutely - it is totally scientific in its approach. It's also great for pennies as it concentrates on them. 

I do agree that sometimes an EF coin with residual lustre, no marks and even toning, can look better than a nominally UNC example with uneven toning and marks. But that is actually separate from degrees of actual wear, which is what grading is all about. 

Derek is a member on here @Red Riley, but hasn't posted for some time.  

Then there is the issue of strike  v  wear which can be very hard to determine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ozjohn said:

Then there is the issue of strike  v  wear which can be very hard to determine.

Absolutely. There are some appallingly poor strikes - for example many of the WW1 George V pennies. An UNC example, can still justly be referred to as UNC, or "practically as struck". But in such cases an EF (or even GVF) coin with a good strike (ie complete breast plate and decent hair detail), is going to be far more desirable  than an UNC coin with 100% lustre, but no sign of a breastplate, and a slaphead King (for want of a better expression).    

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sword said:

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number. 

Such things are wholly subjective, as you say, and would be almost impossible to quantify as opinions vary from person to person. All TPG's can do is grade according to a chart. It's up to individual vendors to point out eye appeal, quality of strike etc. Then for buyers to decide what appeals to them personally.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sword said:

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number. 

  The "prices only depend on grades" adage does roughly approximate the market in post-1950s US coins. Take a common date Memorial cent with a mintage in the 100s of millions. No amount of eye appeal makes a MS66 worth the bonkers money people will pay for a MS69 coin (I think the record is $10k for one in the 1980s ??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JLS said:

  The "prices only depend on grades" adage does roughly approximate the market in post-1950s US coins. Take a common date Memorial cent with a mintage in the 100s of millions. No amount of eye appeal makes a MS66 worth the bonkers money people will pay for a MS69 coin (I think the record is $10k for one in the 1980s ??)

But that's more of ego boosting or wealth-flaunting than coin collecting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sword said:

But that's more of ego boosting or wealth-flaunting than coin collecting. 

I think it's more about the way the NGC and PCGS registries give you points based on the quality (read numerical grade) of your coins. 

If you want to have the top-ranked set of a popular series like the Memorial cents, anything given enough registry points is going to be worth money to you. 

Why you would really care about the NGC/PCGS registry points is beyond me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×